Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[kaz]

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.” You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published

Read it and weep:

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change AGU Newsroom

If you need more, I can supply their statements as well.

Weep about what? That is a POSITION PAPER. Do you seriously not know the difference between a position and a statement of finding of fact?

Their position paper is based on all of the data that has been published, particularly in their own publication. They are, after all, a major scientific organization. Do I need to hold your hand while you read it?

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.

”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU’s position statements are renewed every 4 years. The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012.

AGU’s Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine if it should be renewed as is, modified, or eliminated. In March 2012, the Task Force determined that the climate change position statement would require updating prior to renewal.

With input from AGU’s Council, relevant section and focus group leadership, the Position Statement Task Force, and staff, a panel of experts was subsequently formed to review the statement and make any necessary modifications. A draft of the updated statement was printed in Eos in November 2012, and all AGU members were encouraged to submit comments. After further revisions by the review panel based on the comments received, the statement was then adopted by the AGU Council in June 2013 and by the AGU Board in August 2013.

The newly approved statement will be reported to the AGU membership in the 20 August 2013 issue of Eos, the source of record for all AGU proceedings.

The 14-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:

• Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
• John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
• Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
• Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
• Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
• Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
• Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
• Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
• Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
• Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
• Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
• Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
• Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
• Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)

Do you know the difference between a position paper and a fact? You kept claiming they say it is fact. And you're a lot more impressed with liberal academics making self serving determinations of opinion than I am

 

[kaz]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

 

[orogenicman]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

 

[kaz]

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

 

[orogenicman]

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

Are you serious? Nearly every major scientific institution has published such position statements. They do it when they believe it is important to get across to the public that the results of ongoing research are very important. Quit hedging your bets and admit that it is real, and we are largely the cause. The science is there. It is not ambiguous.

 

[kaz]

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

Are you serious? Nearly every major scientific institution has published such position statements. They do it when they believe it is important to get across to the public that the results of ongoing research are very important. Quit hedging your bets and admit that it is real, and we are largely the cause. The science is there. It is not ambiguous.

You kept saying they said it was "fact." You now admit that isn't so?

 

[rdean]

I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact. You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.


I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is. Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?


You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith

Except climate change has evidence.

Evidence is not proof. I believe in evolution, but as a theory it has more holes than a sieve

No it doesn't.

 

[kaz]

I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact. You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.


I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is. Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?


You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith

Except climate change has evidence.

Evidence is not proof. I believe in evolution, but as a theory it has more holes than a sieve

No it doesn't.

Oops, guess I was wrong then Thanks for clarifying that.

You don't know what you're talking about, but maybe at your 3rd grade level of understanding it's beyond your capability anyway

 

[Old Rocks]

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.
........................................................................................................................

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

Pretty definative statement as to whether global warming is a fact, and to the causes of that warming. American Meteorological Society

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
.............................................................................................................................
Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation of the recent trend have similarly failed.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd (2001) IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

The Geological Society of America. Again, pretty flat statement of cause and effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Chemical Society

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

The American Chemical Society. How many more definitive statements would like me to show you from major Scientific Societies around the world?

 

[jc456]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)

Anti-evolution is a religious issue. I don’t see what that has to do with other issues.

Deniers use the exact same anti-science arguments and rhetoric as anti-evolutionists (and most are conservatives - as if you didn't know. That is what it has to do with "other issues".

Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions.

See below...

Even the proponents can’t decide what it means as they call it “climate change.” When you can answer the basic questions, come back:

1) Is it “warming” or climate change?

Yes.

2) Is it caused by man?

Yes.

3) What is the long term impact? The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient.

Rising sea levels, increased long-term regional droughts, increased regional rainfall, flooding, and more intense storms, melting ice caps and glaciers, possible release of methane clathrates in the oceans and arctic permafrost, melting permafrost, increased human migrations as a result of all of the above, possible/likely water wars, economic distress for many nations, etc., etc., etc. The Earth? It'll keep on doing what it does. Not that we'll be around to see it. Why? Because people aren't as resilient as the Earth.

4) Why do the so called believers propose nothing that would actually counter global warming? They propose things like sending trillions to the poor while exempting the biggest polluters like China. Say what?

We've been saying for years what needs to happen. If you haven't been listening, who's fault is that? As for China, they have agreed to reduce emissions and the heavy pollution they are emitting as well. You didn't know this? Huh.

5) Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer? I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?

Why? Because you get what you give, pal.

My sister is the black sheep of the family. She’s a … liberal.

That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics. She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.

She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming. She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few. Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.

Right. So why doesn't she publish her "professional" findings. Then you can post a link to it right here.

In short, bs

 

[jc456]

I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.

Flight isn't a theory since it's proven by empirical data. Relativity is consistent with what we know so far. Global warming is pure long term extrapolation based on short term data with heavy reliance on assumed causes, those three are all completely different

Flight is a fact. The theory of flight is what gives us airplanes, dude. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Climate science has not only demonstrated this fact, it has also discovered it's cause, a cause which is consistent with what we know. So no, they are not completely different. If they were, every nation on the planet, and every scientific institution on the planet wouldn't agree with me and disagree with you.

And more bs. You are sure full of it today. I bet your eyes are brown

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, JC, you guys are just about as dumb as they come. When you have all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world stating that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger, but you are stating that your uneducated opinion trumps their decades of study, you come off looking like real fools.

 

[jc456]

I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact. You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.


I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is. Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?


You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith

Except climate change has evidence.

Of what and where?

 

[jc456]

Damn, JC, you guys are just about as dumb as they come. When you have all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world stating that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger, but you are stating that your uneducated opinion trumps their decades of study, you come off looking like real fools.

Dude I will stand in front of everyone of them and ask where's the Experiment. Name a day and I'll schedule that confrontation. Bring it socks

 

[jc456]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

So, that was a factual comment.

 

[jc456]

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

No, they do for additional moneyyyyyy

 

[jc456]

American Chemical Society

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

The American Chemical Society. How many more definitive statements would like me to show you from major Scientific Societies around the world?

Can you say bs? BS

 

[jc456]

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

Are you serious? Nearly every major scientific institution has published such position statements. They do it when they believe it is important to get across to the public that the results of ongoing research are very important. Quit hedging your bets and admit that it is real, and we are largely the cause. The science is there. It is not ambiguous.

And the public stated prove it.